This build system seems to be very well suited for building
complex large projects in a sensible way.
I successfully tested the example build on Debian linux. I will
definitely explore this further using one of my own projects.
One issue I immediately ran into, is when I run bub incorrectly
I've read (almost), everything, so I hope I won't miss a point here:
a) I've heard about MSVC, Red Hat, Qt, Linux and so on. From my
understanding, none of the projects mentionned have gone from free (as in
free beer) to hybrid/closed. And I'm not currently able to think of one
successful, widespre
Bottom-up-build (bub) is a build system written in D which supports
building of large C/C++/D projects. It works fine on Linux, with a
Windows port nearly completed. It should work on OS-X, but I haven't
tested it there.
Bub is hosted on https://github.com/GrahamStJack/bottom-up-build.
Some
On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 21:29:12 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Don't call be Shirley...
Serious? :-)
By the way, I hope you didn't feel I was trying to speak on
behalf of GDC -- wasn't my intention. :-)
I did, and it hurt. :o)
Oh no. 50 shades of #DD ? :-)
On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 19:01:42 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Why are they guaranteed such patches? They have advantages
because they use different compiler backends. If they think
their backends are so great, let them implement their own
optimizations and compete.
I could respond at greater le
On 6/26/13, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> I've been using dlibgit since some time
Btw, I'm curious what kind of work you've done using dlibgit (if it's
ok to ask)?
> I've already registered a fork with (partially) updated bindings for the
> master version of libgit2: http://registry.vibed.org/packages/d
On 6/26/13, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Great to hear. I've been using dlibgit since some time and actually I've
> already registered a fork with (partially) updated bindings for the
> master version of libgit2: http://registry.vibed.org/packages/dlibgit
Ah, didn't know that. For now you may want to ho
Am 26.06.2013 21:36, schrieb Andrej Mitrovic:
https://github.com/AndrejMitrovic/dlibgit
These are the D bindings to the libgit2 library. libgit2 is a
versatile git library which can read/write loose git object files,
parse commits, tags, and blobs, do tree traversals, and much more.
The dlibgit
On Jun 26, 2013 9:50 PM, "Joseph Rushton Wakeling" <
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 19:26:37 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> I can't be bothered to read all points the both of you have mentioned
thus far, but I do hope to add a voice of reason to calm you down.
On Jun 26, 2013 9:00 PM, "Joakim" wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 19:26:37 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> From a licensing perspective, the only part of the source that can be
"closed off" is the DMD backend. Any optimisation fixes in the DMD backend
does not affect GDC/LDC.
>
> This is f
On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 19:26:37 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
I can't be bothered to read all points the both of you have
mentioned thus far, but I do hope to add a voice of reason to
calm you down. ;)
Quick, nurse, the screens!
... or perhaps, "Someone throw a bucket of water over them"? :-
On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 19:26:37 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
From a licensing perspective, the only part of the source that
can be "closed off" is the DMD backend. Any optimisation fixes
in the DMD backend does not affect GDC/LDC.
This is flat wrong. I suggest you read the Artistic license, i
https://github.com/AndrejMitrovic/dlibgit
These are the D bindings to the libgit2 library. libgit2 is a
versatile git library which can read/write loose git object files,
parse commits, tags, and blobs, do tree traversals, and much more.
The dlibgit master branch is now based on the recent libgit
I can't be bothered to read all points the both of you have
mentioned thus far, but I do hope to add a voice of reason to
calm you down. ;)
On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 17:42:23 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 12:02:38 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
Now, in trying to d
On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 17:28:22 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
Perhaps you'd like to explain to the maintainers of GDC and LDC
why, after all they've done for D, you think it would be
acceptable to turn to them and say: "Hey guys, we're going to
make improvements and keep them from
On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 12:02:38 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
Now, in trying to drive more funding and professional effort
towards D development, do you _really_ think that the right
thing to do is to turn around to all those people and say: "Hey
guys, after all the work you put in
On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 15:52:33 UTC, Joakim wrote:
I suggest you read my original post more carefully. I have not
suggested closing up the entire D toolchain, as you seem to
imply. I have suggested working on optimization patches in a
closed-source manner and providing two versions of
On 2013-06-26 15:18, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
They don't own them, though -- they commit resources to them because the
language's ongoing development serves their business needs.
Yes, exactly.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 11:08:17 UTC, Leandro Lucarella
wrote:
Joakim, el 25 de June a las 23:37 me escribiste:
I don't know the views of the key contributors, but I wonder
if they
would have such a knee-jerk reaction against any paid/closed
work.
Against being paid no, against being cl
On 2013-06-26 11:07:45 +, Sönke Ludwig said:
Naively I first thought that .class and .protocolof were candidates for
__traits, but actually it looks like they might simply be implemented
using a templated static property:
class ObjcObject {
static @property ProtocolType!T protocolof(this
On 2013-06-26 13:07, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
I agree, it will only influence tools that include a parser. Few syntax
highlighters parse the code (although *some* do), so this was probably
not the best example.
Absolutely, some even do semantic analyze. Example, the syntax
highlighter in Eclipse f
On 26 June 2013 15:04, eles wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 08:21:38 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 05:57:30 UTC, Peter Williams wrote:
>> D Season of Code! Then we don't have to restrict ourselves to one time of
>> the year.
>
>
> D Seasons of Code! Why to restrict
Jacob Carlborg, el 26 de June a las 14:39 me escribiste:
> On 2013-06-26 12:16, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>
> >Yeah, right, probably Python and Ruby have only 5k users...
>
> There are companies backing those languages, at least Ruby, to some
> extent.
Read my other post, I won't repeat myself :)
On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 08:21:38 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 05:57:30 UTC, Peter Williams wrote:
D Season of Code! Then we don't have to restrict ourselves to
one time of the year.
D Seasons of Code! Why to restrict to a single season? Let's code
all the year long!
On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 12:39:05 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-06-26 12:16, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Yeah, right, probably Python and Ruby have only 5k users...
There are companies backing those languages, at least Ruby, to
some extent.
They don't own them, though -- they commit
On 2013-06-26 12:16, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Yeah, right, probably Python and Ruby have only 5k users...
There are companies backing those languages, at least Ruby, to some extent.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 10:18:58 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
that you're talking about the graphical designer I was talking
about the one implementing the design, web developer/frontend
developer or what to call it.
Ah yes. Still though, I don't think ddoc is that big of a deal,
especial
On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 21:38:01 UTC, Joakim wrote:
I don't know the views of the key contributors, but I wonder if
they would have such a knee-jerk reaction against any
paid/closed work. The current situation would seem much more
of a kick in the teeth to me: spending time trying to be
"
On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 11:08:17 UTC, Leandro Lucarella
wrote:
Android might be the only valid case (but I'm not really
familiar with Android model), but the kernel, since is based on
Linux, has to have the source code when
released. Maybe the drivers are closed source.
It is perfectly
Am 26.06.2013 12:09, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
> On 2013-06-26 10:54, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>
>> I agree. Even though it may not be mentioned in books and many people
>> may never see the changes, it still *does* make the language more
>> complex. One consequence is that language processing tools (com
Joakim, el 26 de June a las 08:33 me escribiste:
> It is amazing how far D has gotten with no business model: money
> certainly isn't everything. But it is probably impossible to get to
> a million users or offer professionalism without commercial
> implementations.
Yeah, right, probably Python a
Joakim, el 25 de June a las 23:37 me escribiste:
> On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 20:58:16 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
> wrote:
> >>I wonder what the response would be to injecting some money and
> >>commercialism into the D ecosystem.
> >
> >Given how D's whole success stems from its community, I th
On 2013-06-26 00:55, Aleksandar Ruzicic wrote:
There is no need for designer to know what DDOC is. For the past few
years I have worked with many designers which had only basic knowledge
about HTML and even less about CSS (most of them don't know anything
about JavaScript but they "know jQuery a
On 2013-06-25 23:45, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
For my work sites, I often don't give the designer access to the html at
all. They have one of two options: make it work with pure css, or send
me an image of what it is supposed to look like, and I'll take it from
there.
"web designer" was properly no
On 2013-06-25 22:19, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Truth be told the designer delivered HTML, which we converted to DDoc.
Ok, I see that "web designer" was properly not the correct word(s). "Web
developer" is perhaps better. The one who builds the final format.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 2013-06-26 10:54, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
I agree. Even though it may not be mentioned in books and many people
may never see the changes, it still *does* make the language more
complex. One consequence is that language processing tools (compilers,
syntax highlighters etc.) get updated/written wi
Am 24.06.2013 20:10, schrieb Brian Schott:
> On Monday, 24 June 2013 at 17:51:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 6/24/2013 3:04 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>> On 2013-06-23 23:02, bearophile wrote:
>>>
Instead of:
extern (Objective-C)
Is it better to use a naming more D-idiomatic
Am 24.06.2013 23:26, schrieb bearophile:
> Walter Bright:
>
>> Yes, but since I don't know much about O-C programming, the feature
>> should be labeled "experimental" until we're sure it's the right design.
>
> This change opens a new target of D development (well, it was already
> open for the p
38 matches
Mail list logo
